Talk:Line of succession to the Lovian throne
Rewrite, anyone? I'm not real good with these list-thingies and I don't know in which order the Line will be written, name-wise. Any help? BastardRoyale 17:10, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not going to. Suit yourself - or let the reformers do it! The Master's Voice 17:37, May 29, 2011 (UTC) If you don't want to be in the line of succession, then this doesn't need a rewrite. If you do want to be in the line of succession, then your people need to be added. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :I believe he want to, as he changed his article... The Master's Voice 17:56, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::Yes, I want to be included. According to the law, I'm entitled to. BastardRoyale 14:28, May 30, 2011 (UTC) Well, if you want, then add everyone for Philip and George's lines. Why weren't you part of the line of succession before? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:01, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :Because there wasn't clearity in the Constitution, I guess. Now with the new state reform, all issues have been settled. All descendents of Arthur I are therefore automatically included in the LoS unless otherwise specified. The Master's Voice 16:12, May 30, 2011 (UTC) Yes, unless they don't want to. Very basic and no dumb crap. xD —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:13, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :Indeed. Well, we don't have to worry about the Royal Family ever dying out with these fertile folk. This'll add two brothers and their combined eight children. The Master's Voice 16:30, May 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Nine children. HORTON11 16:34, May 30, 2011 (UTC) :::Even better, I guess. The Master's Voice 16:43, May 30, 2011 (UTC) Who is in it? ::Based on this part of the law: *''All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.'' ::The descendents of Arthur III should also be included in the Line of Succession. They are illegitimate though, but still descendents by blood of Arthur I. Since they were not born to married parents, they will most likely have to be moved to the bottom of the list, so that the other nephews and the King's brother go before them. Nine people (sons and grandchildren of Arthur III) are legally entitled to be in the LoS, and therefore should be included a.s.a.p. - I'm not very good with these things though (editing this sorta pages). The Master's Voice 09:19, September 23, 2011 (UTC) They were removed from the LoS a long time ago and I don't think any "real" people deserve to be in the LoS except for dimi. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:13, September 23, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think they are "real people" any more then any of the other Royal Family characters invented by real people... The law is very simple here: as direct descendents of Arthur the First they should be in the LoS. Period. The Master's Voice 20:57, September 23, 2011 (UTC) New heir Y'know, the King could (just about) have had a child by now. Anyone interested in this idea? --Semyon 18:49, October 2, 2011 (UTC) That would be a bit early, you know. 20? Honestly. . . I don't support that idea. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:59, October 2, 2011 (UTC) FOUR?!!?!! Four?? There are more living relatives that should be added, from the Jacobian branch. HORTON11: • 18:57, November 7, 2013 (UTC) Extending the line? Ok, I've added the only other living descendants who are legitimately and unquestionably in the line of succession, Princess Helena and her two children. Still, it's very small and only as large as the Cettatie line). So, do you think it is feasible to create an extended line with other members, or to determine who they might be? HORTON11: • 18:47, March 20, 2014 (UTC) :I don't really care :P --OuWTB 13:59, March 21, 2014 (UTC) ::But what if a bomb were to fall on the Royal Palace? Then we'd lose all our royals and would need to hire geneologists to find the closest living relative of King Arthur I. HORTON11: • 14:09, March 21, 2014 (UTC) :::Or abolish it altogether :P As I said, I don't really care :P --OuWTB 16:46, March 21, 2014 (UTC) :::Add Arthur's bastard kids and grandkids. ;) King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 22:40, March 22, 2014 (UTC) ::::We might need to clarify the law then. Though it does state that all descendants of Arthur I blah blah, that was when all his descendants were legitimate. Bastardroyale added Arthur III's children and was allowed to keep it that way on the condition of them renouncing their position in the LoS. And if we are to recognize them, we could also do the same for Charles van Draak and his family. HORTON11: • 16:12, March 23, 2014 (UTC) :::Sure, add Charles too. This will really shake things up big time. If they are not included, I swear, I will start a new civil war. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 19:26, March 23, 2014 (UTC) ::::I don't know if that's my decision to make, even as PM. Perhaps we'd need to get congress to either clarify the law and/or legally include these in the LoS. HORTON11: • 20:12, March 24, 2014 (UTC) Let us resolve this calmly What's the reason for the "disputed" template, TimeMaster? 77topaz (talk) 07:43, November 14, 2015 (UTC) :I think the Mortensens are disputed. --OuWTB 16:55, November 14, 2015 (UTC) ::Well I dont see the problem with them. Our LoS is alarmingly and unrealistically small, and Helena and her two children do not affect it negatively at all. And as you said, Oos, the law is the law and King Arthur{s legal descendants are in the line. In the past Time was for the Jacobians in the Royal Family thoug not in the LoS, but in real life that does not work. You have people in lines which are not royals and some which aren´t even noble, and its perfectly alright. And, it{s not like we are opening the floodgate to twenty other people in the line; while Helena and her children are in Brunant´s LoS, the Brunanters are not in the Lovian one, as they are not male line relations of a monarch, while Helena is (of King Cristian, I think). 20:57, November 14, 2015 (UTC) :::I don't think male/female is a difference in the Lovian succession though :o --OuWTB 13:40, November 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::It's not, but the Bruannter's are not descendants of King Arthur I, as Lovia's royals have so few babies/or don't have them at all. Sebastian is the only Lovian monarch who is descended from King Karl Van Draak and Isabella of Parma, which all other wikination royals share as closest common ancestors (see here: http://carrington.wikia.com/wiki/Karl_Van_Draak#Descendants_and_legacy and here). 15:35, November 16, 2015 (UTC) And on Time's continued "edits", I see them verging on vandalism, as they are not constructive in any way, he does not give reasoning for his opposition and id the only one who seems to oppose those. 19:45, November 16, 2015 (UTC) :You are describing your edits. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:47, November 16, 2015 (UTC) It's because that branch of the family should not exist and never should have been added (and since Horton disagrees, a disputed template is added). Also, stop trying to link so many wikination's royal families together. Our LoS may or may not be alarmingly small, but that doesn't make it unrealistic. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:47, November 16, 2015 (UTC) Well the branch does exist, has been added, and apart from you is supported (including the King, who was not a fan of the low number of living royals (even now only eight). It is very small, and it is fairly unrealistic; most royal fmailies have non-royal and even non-noble cousins, even if they are not listed in the official lines of succession. And the linking was done by a number of other users as well; it's not an issue as most royalty married between them, with many cases of intermarriage to preserve the bloodlines. And anyways, they are rather distantly related; a Lovian newspaper editor and a 99 year old duchess are closer in relation to Brunant's Queen, and according to Wabba's work King Sebastian is number 326 in line to Brunant's throne, which can hardly be named close in relation. 20:02, November 16, 2015 (UTC) : And your less than pleasant comment when undoing my edit seems a good indication of rashness, don't you think? 20:04, November 16, 2015 (UTC) ::I dislike the monarchy in general, I'm a republican. Mezatir FictiveJ (discuss) 23:21, November 16, 2015 (UTC) ::That's not really relevant to the issue at hand, though. :P 77topaz (talk) 23:55, November 16, 2015 (UTC) Calm it I know I've hardly been active here lately, but if I only say one thing on the wiki, it's this... calm the fuck down guys! It's hardly a big deal and you've got a big problem if you can't even resolve something like this without getting angry and aggressive --'Frijoles333' TALK 22:10, November 16, 2015 (UTC) Yeah, me naming the section "Let us resolve this calmly" didn't work. :P 77topaz (talk) 23:55, November 16, 2015 (UTC) ::Protection. Mezatir FictiveJ (discuss) 00:05, November 17, 2015 (UTC)